Atheist Sunday School

Atheists in Palo Alto realize that their kids need regular instruction in morals and ethics – so they’ve started a nice secular humanist class, held, ironically, by a man with last name of "Bishop." They are mimicking similar programs in other cities, and sending their kids to secularist summer camps like Camp Quest. I have some observations.

They want the moral and ethical results of Christianity without the God of Christianity – they will have some success, since half of human success if maximizing human potential – but the other half? Addressing man’s spiritual condition and need for God. Man without God will not be able to escape his own spiritual falleness – which is why atheist systems are destined to end in cruelty.

They are right – humans need ethical and moral training. But is the alternative they provide, devoid of faith in God, and awash in subjective morality, really going to produce moral people? Probably only a few – not only because they ignore the spiritually fallen nature of man, but because a subjective moral system eventually leads to justifying persecuting objective ones. And as Gary DeMar explains in Why all atheists aren’t monsters (PDF), "Most atheists are inconsistent with their atheistic assumptions, keeping them from becoming heartless beasts."

Some Christian education programs ARE brainwashing, and I wouldn’t want my kids in them either. Those that practice blind faith religion certainly don’t turn out healthy humans, but the alternative is to find a healthy faith community. However, atheists, in throwing out the God with the bathwater, are doomed to fail in their effort – cf. Communism, since, as the American forefathers knew, public virtue is impossible without faith in God (on a national level – individual godless people may be nice and moral, but it does not scale up – see point 2 and 5).

It has been tried before. In my post on Liberal, MO, we saw an atheist community that mimicked Sunday school, but preached humanism and science and humanistic philosophy in its place. The result? A moral cesspool. As one former resident of the failed atheist town said "An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate."

Atheistic moralism is merely reflecting (poorly) the light of Christian morals without God. In an excellent article by Gary DeMar (not yet released on the web), it is explained that, atheist moralists are like moon worshippers – they can’t actually stand the light of the sun, but rather, like the dimmer light of the moon, not realizing that the moon itself has no light, but is merely a poor reflection of the sun they have rejected.

seeker, I think that the charges you level at atheism(ie, it produces beasts and results in cruelty)can also be leveled at xianity and other religious beliefs. As I've stated elsewhere, the authoritarian and absolutist values and belief structures which lie at the heart of these religions can very well create the conditions which result in cruel regimes and "moral cesspools." And, please, don't just dismiss the historical evidence as the result of "religious wackos and immature xians," or of human error – the problem lies in the religious systems as well. I'll say it again: you insist on applying a double-standard, excusing or explaining away xian atrocities while applying a moralistic microtome to atheist perversions. Why not just admit that absolutist systems are the spiritual viruses of humanity, inflicting untold suffering and death wherever they infect us. And xianity is not immune from these forces.

I think that the charges you level at atheism(ie, it produces beasts and results in cruelty)can also be leveled at xianity and other religious beliefs. But my charge is made for different reasons, AND I deny the validity of the attacks on xianity. I claim that atheism creates monsters by giving the fallen nature of man full reign, without the transforming or restraining power of God, which ends up releasing the monster that man is – hence the expression "ultimate power corrupts ultimately." It also creates monsters because intrinsic to atheism is a hatred for religion and biblical morality (i.e. the God of the bible), and this disdain unerringly goes from ridicule to oppression to persecution of those who don't buy into the atheist utopia. The argument made against religion is that telling people they have ultimate truth leads to hubris and to domination of others. And while this may be true to some extent, to deny objective reality in matters of faith is to make them subjective, and essentially useless. I don't have time here to discuss why this is an error, but needless to say, I don't buy the argument that you can't have claims of objective truth in spiritual matters. Especially since there are other principles in scripture which counteract the human tendency to be prideful – the many, many, frequent commands to serve, love, resist pride, etc – all of which are missing from the atheist bible ;).

Hi Seeker and Louis: To continue my streak of disagreeing with you both:-) Seeker wrote: I have some observations. 1. They want the moral and ethical results of Christianity without the God of Christianity – they will have some success, since half of human success if maximizing human potential – but the other half? Man without God will not be able to escape his own spiritual falleness – which is why atheist systems are destined to end in cruelty. Being a Christian I agree that without Christ we are ultimately doomed to failure (Louis of course disagrees with this, being as he isn't a Christian). But based on the historical evidence, in the short run being a Christian doesn't stop us from indulging in cruelty and bigotry. Christ is the savior of the world, especially for those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10)–from our history you could make a case that we Christians especially need saving from our sins. 2. They are right – humans need ethical and moral training. But is the alternative they provide, devoid of faith in God, and awash in subjective morality, really going to produce moral people? Probably only a few – because as Gary DeMar explains in Why all atheists aren't monsters (PDF), "Most atheists are inconsistent with their atheistic assumptions, keeping them from becoming heartless beasts." I share Seeker's (presumed) opinion that if God didn't exist there'd be no true morality, but I think it is important to remember that belief in God isn't a requirement nor a guarantee that we will behave ethically. I know plenty of atheists who put me to shame morally–plenty of Christians too. 3. Some Christian education programs ARE brainwashing, and I wouldn't want my kids in them either. Those that practice blind faith religion certainly don't turn out healthy humans, but the alternative is to find a healthy faith community. However, atheists, in throwing out the God with the bathwater, are doomed to fail in their effort – cf. Communism, since, as the American forefathers knew, public virtue is impossible without faith in God (on a national level – individual godless people may be nice and moral, but it does not scale up – see point 2 and 5). I don't know if I agree with that. There was a lot more to Communism than merely disbelief in God and there is no reason to attribute its failures to the element of atheism. It seems to me that the real problem with Communism (like the problem with all form,s of fascism) is the idea that we are so sure we are right that we can justify creaming people who disagree. The whole "to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs" philosophy led to oppression and tyranny. That didn't derive from the atheistic beliefs of Marx and Engels. 4. It has been tried before. In my post on Liberal, MO, we saw an atheist community that mimicked Sunday school, but preached humanism and science and humanistic philosophy in its place. The result? A moral cesspool. As one former resident of the failed atheist town said "An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate." On the other hand, the so-called Christian world was a moral cesspool too, what with chattel slavery, genocide against indigenous people etc. Maybe it's just that people stink:-) 5. Atheistic moralism is merely reflecting (poorly) the light of Christian morals without God. In an excellent article by Gary DeMar (not yet released on the web), it is explained that, atheist moralists are like moon worshippers – they can't actually stand the light of the sun, but rather, like the dimmer light of the moon, not realizing that the moon itself has no light, but is merely a poor reflection of the sun they have rejected. I'm sure Louis disagrees totally with this last one, but as a Christian I think DeMar is right. Right and wrong exist (I claim) becasue God exists, without God everything would be permissible. I'm not about to prove this assertion of mine though, and I expect Louis to take it about as seriously as he'd take any other unproved assertion. your friend Keith

I find the last point particularly loathsome, for it is but a short step from that view of atheists and other religious dissenters to one of persecution of the heretics. This is the point I have tried to make to seeker over and over: the absolutism and authoritarianism of your religion has historically led, inevitably, to atrocity. All is permitted, indeed, to those who believe God is on their side.

Hi Louis: You wrote:I find the last point particularly loathsome, for it is but a short step from that view of atheists and other religious dissenters to one of persecution of the heretics. I don't see how that would follow from the view I asserted. The belief that (a) there exists an absolute, objective morality and that (b) part of that morality is that you do not persecute people just because they don't agree with you about God, that you turn the other cheek, that when you offer Christ to a person and the person isn't interested you move on, that belief seems to me to be quite unlikely to produce oppression.This is the point I have tried to make to seeker over and over: the absolutism and authoritarianism of your religion has historically led, inevitably, to atrocity. All is permitted, indeed, to those who believe God is on their side. I don't believe it was Christianity that led to oppression, it was Constantinianism (the union of the church with the military/political power of the Roman Empire). Christ taught cheek turning, blessing those who curse us, not judging others, caring for our neighbors in need. The Pharisaic temptation to see ourselves as the righteous and those "others" as sinful can't be blamed on what Christ taught. your friend Keith

But based on the historical evidence, in the short run being a Christian doesn’t stop us from indulging in cruelty and bigotry. I think you are less than correct. As I have explained to Louis when he compares the atrocities of xianity to those of atheism: – many atrocities done in the name of xianity were not done by xians, but by the religious power brokers and esp. the corrupt catholic church of the middle ages, whose corruption came in large part precisely because they were NOT biblical, regenerated believers – many of the atrocities attributed to xianity in history (notably the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the IRA/Catholic feuds) were not really perpetrated by xians, but by political groups for political ends. While xians are not exempt from atrocities due to the incompleteness of the redemption of their souls and bodies, as well as the temptations of the world (the lusts of the eyes, flesh, and for power), xianity is better than, say, atheism, precisely because it directly addresses the fallen nature of man through spiritual regeneration, and the pressures towards ungodliness through exhortation, instruction, and rebuke. So while it doesn’t give xians a perfect record, the difference is vast. In fact, it can be argued that most of the success of the western nations, as well as most of the charitable work and spread of peace in the world, including abolition, has been championed and led by xianity. So while you rightly say that calling oneself a christian, or even being one, does not stop people from indulging in bigotry or hatred, it certainly (1) addresses the root of the problem, and (2) directly addresses such sins and teaches against them. While I am not saying that xianity or xians have a perfect historical record, I think you are siding with the anti-religionists when you intimate the xians have fared no better in historical terms than other atheistic or religious systems – and I believe that perspective to be wildly incorrect.I share Seeker’s (presumed) opinion that if God didn’t exist there’d be no true morality, but I think it is important to remember that belief in God isn’t a requirement nor a guarantee that we will behave ethically. I know plenty of atheists who put me to shame morally–plenty of Christians too. I think that the opinion that if there was no god there would be no morality is really untrue. But I do assume that atheism is essentially a subjective moral system – I mean, what governing authority do they use to determine morality? In the end, it will come down to man’s opinion, which is why America’s founders wanted to ground man’s liberties in God, not the state, and not the subjective whims of mankind. I would say that anyone observing reality could see that some moral principles are objectively true, and objectively we can find some things that are right and wrong universally, be there a God or not, and unbelievers could find such things out. And while we find ethical people among the religious and irreligious, I am merely arguing that, on a grand scale, when you scale up atheism and give it power, it leads to atrocity because the fallen nature of man, ungoverned by the spirit of god or a renewed nature, can do no other. And that temptation, while one that can befall a christian leader, is less likely to persist or end in tyranny because of the truths of God in God’s people.The whole “to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs” philosophy led to oppression and tyranny. That didn’t derive from the atheistic beliefs of Marx and Engels. Well, i’m no scholar in history, but I believe that the devaluing of humans for the sake of humanity derives directly from atheism’s godless view. But you are right, communism may have other design defaults, but all of them can be traced to a world view that disagrees with scripture, be it the existence of god, the rights of the state, the rights of the individual (don’t forget our constitution which states that individual rights come from god, NOT the state), principles for business (which can also be derived from scripture) etc.On the other hand, the so-called Christian world was a moral cesspool too, what with chattel slavery, genocide against indigenous people etc. Maybe it’s just that people stink:-) Your lack of faith in xianity’s ability to produce social reform and meaningful, loving communities is staggering. I would guess from your low view of the church that you are really a lone ranger type of xian, and don’t really participate in the “moral cesspool” of xianity. While it is good to be self-critical and honest, I think you have gone beyond honest evaluation to sitting in the seat of the scoffer and doubter. Your God seems to be the one of failure, not the one that has produces fruit throughout history. And if by “crimes against indigenous people” you mean the colonization of North America, while some of that did happen, there are two sides to that story – check out the reverend who formed Providence, RI for a renewed look at that.the absolutism and authoritarianism of your religion has historically led, inevitably, to atrocity. There is nothing wrong with moral absolutes – it’s what you do with them that make the difference. The balanced view is that there are some big things should be morally beyond dispute – and we should follow Romans 14 for the remaining questionable items (see Navigating Moral Gray Areas). Religious people that practice absolutism in every point are unhealthy, but to throw out moral absolutes totally is intellectually and morally foolish. And moral subjectivism is equally harmful, leading to moral corruption.I don’t believe it was Christianity that led to oppression, it was Constantinianism (the union of the church with the military/political power of the Roman Empire). I agree on that point – the marriage of ecclesiastic and political power is the problem, and one that is not even really biblical – see The Five Spheres of Government

Hi Seeker: Good points of course. Let me address them: 1. You wrote: many atrocities done in the name of xianity were not done by xians, but by the religious power brokers and esp. the corrupt catholic church of the middle ages, whose corruption came in large part precisely because they were NOT biblical, regenerated believers Forget the Crusades, forget the Inquisition. In the US people who worshipped on Christian churches, who taught Christ to their children, owned slaves, committed genocide, committed terrible acts of bigotry. That there were also a few Christians who opposed those terrible things shows what the ideal can be, but it is unfair to compare our "best" with atheism's "worst". That's all I'm saying.I think that the opinion that if there was no god there would be no morality is really untrue. But I do assume that atheism is essentially a subjective moral system – I mean, what governing authority do they use to determine morality? In the end, it will come down to man's opinion, which is why America's founders wanted to ground man's liberties in God, not the state, and not the subjective whims of mankind. I think we are talking past each other here. I believe there is an objective right and wrong and without God there wouldn't be. This doesn't mean there would never be people who claimed that such and such was right and this and that is wrong. BTW I would deny the validity of human beings basing our rights on anything. The founding fathers didn't decide our rights are based on God because that is a more secure way to establish our rights. Our rights are our rights and the best a human being can do is recognize those rights, not create them.Your lack of faith in xianity's ability to produce social reform and meaningful, loving communities is staggering. I would guess from your low view of the church that you are really a lone ranger type of xian, and don't really participate in the "moral cesspool" of xianity. While it is good to be self-critical and honest, I think you have gone beyond honest evaluation to sitting in the seat of the scoffer and doubter. Your God seems to be the one of failure, not the one that has produces fruit throughout history. Seeker, I'm sorry to say but you sometimes do this: you improperly infer all kinds of stuff about the person who makes a fairly narrow comment. How on earth do you get that I have little faith in Christianity's ability to inspire social reform? All I said was that in our history there have been countless examples of of Christians who displayed all kinds of horrible, bigoted behaviors. That's not disputable. Nothing I said implies a lack of faith in the organized church as an inspiration to social reform. I just noted that it has often failed to do so. I am not presenting God as a failure–it's we who failed, not God. You agree it is good to be self-critical, but (you say) I have gone overboard. I think you have gone "underboard", I think you overlook too many of the churche's sins. To be open about my biases though, I should say that I think conservative christians are often undercritiical of the way the church behaves, otherwise they wouldn't speak as if the old days (days that happened to have slavery and genocide) were morally better than the supposedly depraved modern society. And I have no idea what to make of your "lone ranger Christian" comment. You seem to think I called Christianity a cesspool and that probably I don't participate in that cesspool. Well, I am active in my church and i do not consider my church a moral cesspool. Neither do I think the church at the time of slavery was a moral cesspool. But many Christians of the time undeniably participated in a moral cesspool and many Christian congregations and their pastors supported such. The church I originated in (Southern Baptists) actually formed to support the Confederacy! Let's end on a point of agreement.I agree on that point – the marriage of ecclesiastic and political power is the problem, and one that is not even really biblical – see The Five Spheres of Government Right on. your friend Keith

My charge that a moral double-standard is at work here still stands. Xians get off virtually scot-free while atheists are held to an impossible standard. I see no reason to change my mind. Absolutism, whether atheistic or theistic, inevitably leads atrocity. As to Keith's points about Jesus' pacifism: nice in theory, but impossible in execution, as xianity has established (in spades).

Hi Louis: You wrote: My charge that a moral double-standard is at work here still stands. Xians get off virtually scot-free while atheists are held to an impossible standard. I see no reason to change my mind. Absolutism, whether atheistic or theistic, inevitably leads atrocity. As to Keith's points about Jesus' pacifism: nice in theory, but impossible in execution, as xianity has established (in spades). A few points: 1. I didn't actually say anything about pacifism, all I said was that Christianity itself doesn't entail persecuting non-Christians. Impossible in practice? Hardly I'd say as there have been many examples of Christian groups that did not and do not persecute (the Quakers, Mennonites to speak of the groups I have particular sympathy with; I'll leave it to Seeker to point out examples of more mainstream non-persecuting Christian groups). 2. On the other hand, it is not impossible for Christian groups to actually practice pacifism–the same groups I mentioned above practice pacifism. 3. I would disagree with you that it's the "absolutism" of Christianity that has led to those occasions when Christians persecuted non-Christians. What causes persecution are the (false) ideas that (a) other people are an ultimate threat to your group, enough of a threat that (b) it is OK to make them suffer to protect your group from theirs. The Gospel of Christ precludes those ideas, since (according to us) God works everything out in the end for the good of–there is no ultimate threat that God won't ultimately protect us from. You seem to think that moral relativism is somehow less prone to oppression than absolutism. Why think that? your friend Keith

1. Certainly, there are some sects who practice pacifism. However, the vast majority has, historically, been quite oppressive and war-like. Take the Thirty-Years War in Europe where 1 in 3 Germans were slaughtered in the name of Christ (just one example). Or, perhaps, the massacre of the Huguenots in 16th c. France. Xianity has rarely followed pacifistic principles. Also, it's a fact that Jesus constantly threatened the torments of hell to those who refuse to kow-tow to his demands. Quite a departure from his supposed peaceful teachings. 2.Pacifism is, I am convinced, an evil philosophy in that it prevents its adherents from confronting and defeating evil when necessary. It also allows its believers to claim the high moral ground while tacitly demanding that others shoulder the burden of defending the weak, the innocent, and civilization itself from destruction. It's hypocritical and repulsive. 3. I would prefer to live under a relativistic system than an absolutist one. Why? Because the former allows for a variety of viewpoints and imposes no single philosophy on everyone, while the latter no only proposes, but demands a single, unified view for everyone. Anyone who dissents faces the danger of persecution and death. The history of xianity (and other absolutist systems like Communism and Nazism) is replete with examples of this situation. If I claim that I possess the absolute truth, why should I tolerate any deviation from it? All other philosophies pose an intolerable danger to myself and my society. The arguments are well known (Save the children! Save the Family! Save the Church!). Thus, the (thankfully) deceased Jerry Falwell can charge that America's tolerance for gays was one cause of 9/11 and, implicitly, can argue for the suppression of gay rights. No thank you.